David Molnar wrote:
> Rachel McConnell wrote:
>> Upon morning consideration, I have to agree about the keys at least.
>> I am also not completely comfortable giving a key to anyone who asks.
>> I think we have to rescind that and hopefully come up with some other
>> idea for access until the traceable system is installed.
>> Well, we should talk about that. Part of the point of AnonAccess system
> currently considered is that, while we can tell the person at the door
> is in fact authorized to enter, we will not be keeping logs of who
> entered when.
Right. An auto locking door solves the issues that we have with all
kinds of key systems. It works well for das labor and it will probably
work well for us.
>>> I see that David M isn't cc'd on this and he's out promising people keys.
>> Yes, that's right, since I thought that's what we talked about at the
> meeting. I do remember some discussion but I thought that we came down
> as saying OK for everyone to get keys. I was wrong. Please e-mail the
> list and edit the wiki to let everyone know.
>
This is what we discussed. You are not wrong. This was the agreement we
reached last night and no one blocked. The entire board was present. We
might have changed how we feel this morning but that doesn't change what
actually happened last night. _Everyone_ was given a chance to speak and
as the secretary, you didn't note a voice of dissent, did you?
>>> Financial report and furniture are on there, but there were a couple
>>> hours worth of other unlisted agenda items at meeting time, and some
>>> of them (key stuff, tool-sharing stuff) are things I'd have liked a
>>> chance to think about and talk about beforehand. I said last night
>>> that I'm not comfortable giving out keys until the paperwork is
>>> sorted out, and now the meeting notes say that anyone who asks gets
>>> one. For Fucks Sake what kind of consensus is that?
>> I'm sorry, this is my mistake - my notes said we talked about it and
> came down with everyone gets keys, although we had some other
> discussion. E-mail the list and let people know that's not the way you
> feel.
It may be premature to give everyone keys. However, last night we seemed
to be in agreement. Please correct me if I am mistaken. It also appeared
that Noah agreed last night in that he did not block in the discussion
process, comfortable or not. Rachel has stated that she changed her mind
this morning but that doesn't change that she was alright with this
during the process last evening.
I think it's totally fair to say that this is an issue that needs
further discussion. We cannot change the fact that the group feels we
reached a consensus. Nor that we reported the consensus. If you don't
feel that way, you need to speak up during the process and be a blocker.
Please!
I think it's worth noting that it's _already_ been decided. If we as a
board want to change this, we need to discuss internally before we state
this change in public. Furthermore, we may want to present this issue to
the membership and let it be discussed on list. Just because two people
feel uncomfortable doesn't mean that we change the policy. There's three
to a quorum and we're supposed to vote for the will of the members who
think that we've _already_ reached a consensus.
I've just created board@ and I've cc'ed this email to that list. Lets
have the discussion there. Please.
Best,
Jake